מנחות קג

מנחות קג

אלא שקבען בשעת נדר אבל בשעת הפרשה לא

only when he assigned it at the time of the vow. But if at the time of the vow he simply said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, and at the time of the designation of the fine flour as a meal offering he specified a particular type of meal offering, he is not obligated to bring that type, and if he brought a different type, he has still fulfilled his obligation.

(דברים כג, כד) כאשר נדרת ולא כאשר הפרשת

The reason for this is that the Torah states: “That which has emerged from your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: “According to what you have vowed,” and not: According to what you have designated to fulfill your vow, only matters specified as part of the vow are essential to its content.

איתמר נמי אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שקבען בשעת נדר אבל בשעת הפרשה לא כאשר נדרת ולא כאשר הפרשת:

It was also stated that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna’im taught in the mishna that meal offerings are not valid only when he established their type at the time of the vow and subsequently brought a different type of meal offering. But if he mentioned one type of meal offering at the time of the designation of the flour, and then brought it differently, it is not invalid, as the Torah states: “According to what you have vowed,” and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.

מתני׳ האומר הרי עלי מנחה מן השעורים יביא מן החטים קמח יביא סולת בלא שמן ובלא לבונה יביא שמן ולבונה

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, should bring the meal offering from wheat, as voluntary meal offerings are brought exclusively from wheat. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from flour, should bring the meal offering from fine flour, as it is written: “His offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). If one vows to bring a meal offering without oil and without frankincense, he should bring it with oil and frankincense, as voluntary meal offerings require oil and frankincense.

חצי עשרון יביא עשרון שלם עשרון ומחצה יביא שנים רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבין:

If one vows to bring as a meal offering half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah, the minimum measure of a voluntary meal offering. If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half an ephah, he should bring two tenths, as there are no partial tenths of an ephah brought in meal offerings. Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases. This is because the vow does not take effect, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge.

גמ׳ אמאי נדר ופתחו עמו הוא

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why is the vow to bring a meal offering from barley valid? It is seemingly a case of a vow and its extenuation together. The statement: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, is a valid vow, while the next term: From barley, constitutes a retraction, as the speaker knows that a meal offering may not be brought from barley.

אמר חזקיה הא מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי תפוס לשון ראשון דתנן הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה בית שמאי אומרים נזיר ובית הלל אומרים אינו נזיר

Ḥizkiyya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: In the case of one who stated a declaration comprising two contradictory statements, attend only to the first statement. As we learned in a mishna (Nazir 9a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from pressed figs, which is a contradictory statement, as figs are not prohibited to a nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He is a full-fledged nazirite, as one attends only to the first statement, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, and the second part is discounted. And Beit Hillel say: The second part of his statement is not discounted, and therefore he is not a nazirite, as he did not accept naziriteship upon himself.

ר’ יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא בית הלל באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You may even say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. It is referring to one who, upon being informed that such a vow is not effective, says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner to bring barley for a meal offering, I would not have vowed in this manner but rather in that manner, by vowing to bring wheat instead.

אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא דאמר מנחה מן השעורים אבל אמר מנחה מן העדשים לא

§ The Gemara cites another disagreement between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan about the mishna: Ḥizkiyya says that the Sages taught in the mishna only that where he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, he can bring a meal offering from wheat instead, but if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow is not valid.

מכדי חזקיה כמאן אמר לשמעתיה כבית שמאי ובית שמאי משום תפוס לשון ראשון הוא מה לי מן השעורין מה לי מן העדשים הדר ביה

The Gemara asks: Now, Ḥizkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion, and Beit Shammai’s ruling is due to the principle that one should attend only to the first statement. If so, what is the difference to me whether he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley or from lentils? In either case, that principle should require him to bring a meal offering from wheat. The Gemara answers: Ḥizkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

ומאי טעמא הדר ביה אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני מנחה מן השעורים ליתני מן העדשים

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that he retracted his explanation? Rava said: The mishna posed a difficulty for him: Why does the tanna specifically teach this halakha using the example of a meal offering from barley? Let it teach the halakha using the example of a meal offering from lentils, which is a greater novelty.

אלא שמע מינה משום דטעי הוא בשעורים טעי בעדשים לא טעי

Rather, learn from it that the reason the vow takes effect is because one may err. With regard to barley, it is reasonable that one may err, since one of the individual meal offerings, the meal offering of a sota, comes from barley. But with regard to lentils, one would not err in thinking that one may bring a meal offering from them. Therefore, one can presume that by saying: Lentils, he intended to negate his initial statement.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מן העדשים מכדי ר’ יוחנן כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה כבית הלל ובית הלל משום דטעי הוא בשעורין טעי בעדשים לא טעי

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the mishna, even if he vowed to being a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Now, Rabbi Yoḥanan states that his tradition in interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel understand that the reason the meal offering takes effect is because one may reasonably err. One may err with regard to barley being fit for a meal offering, but with regard to lentils, he will not err that they are fit. Why then, does Rabbi Yoḥanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?

לדבריו דחזקיה קאמר ליה את מאי טעמא הדרת בך משום דלא קתני מן העדשים

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact hold that when he vows to bring a meal offering from lentils it is not valid. What he said was in response to the statement of Ḥizkiyya. Rabbi Yoḥanan is saying to him: What is the reason that you retracted your explanation of the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is because the mishna does not teach using the example of one who vowed to bring a meal offering from lentils, which would have been a greater novelty.

דלמא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא מן העדשים דאיכא למימר מהדר הוא דהדר ביה ותפוס לשון ראשון אלא אפילו מן השעורין נמי דאיכא למימר מיטעא הוא דקא טעי אפילו הכי תפוס לשון ראשון

Rabbi Yoḥanan questions this reasoning: Perhaps the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that when one vows to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect and he brings a meal offering from wheat. He brings it because one has reason to say that he in fact intended to vow and then retracted his initial statement, and yet the vow takes effect in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one should attend only to the initial statement and his retraction is disregarded. But even if he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley, where one has reason to say he made an error, and had he known that a meal offering is not brought from barley, he would not have vowed at all, nevertheless, the vow takes effect and he must bring a meal offering, due to the principle: Attend only to the first statement.

אמר זעירי לא שנו אלא דאמר מנחה אבל לא אמר מנחה לא

The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Ze’eiri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of one’s statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [minḥa], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [minḥat se’orim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said minḥat se’orim or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring barley, the vow does not take effect, and he does not bring a meal offering.

יתיב רב נחמן וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן קמח יביא סולת לאו דלא אמר מנחה לא דאמר מנחה

Rav Naḥman was sitting and reciting this halakha of Ze’eiri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from the mishna: One who vows to bring a meal offering from regular flour, which is not used for a meal offering, should bring the meal offering from fine flour. Is it not referring to a case where he did not say: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, but rather said: It is incumbent upon me to bring regular flour? Apparently, the vow takes effect even if one did not state the term meal offering in an independent form. Rav Naḥman responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.

בלא שמן ולבונה יביא שמן ולבונה מאי לאו דלא אמר מנחה לא דאמר מנחה

Rava raised another, similar objection from the continuation of the mishna: With regard to one who vows to bring a meal offering without oil and frankincense, his vow takes effect, and he shall bring it with oil and frankincense. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the word meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Naḥman responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering without oil or frankincense.

חצי עשרון יביא עשרון שלם מאי לאו דלא אמר מנחה לא דאמר מנחה

Rava asks again based on the mishna: If one vows to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the term meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Naḥman responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah.

אי הכי אימא סיפא עשרון ומחצה יביא שנים כיון דאמר מנחה איחייב ליה בעשרון כי אמר חצי עשרון לא כלום קאמר הוא

Rava asks: If it is so that in all the cases in the mishna his vow included the term meal offering, say the last clause: If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half of an ephah, he should bring two tenths. Once he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah of flour. Therefore, when he states the words: Half a tenth, he is not saying anything, as he did not say the term meal offering with it, and would not have to bring two tenths. In what case is the ruling in the latter clause relevant?

לא צריכא דאמר הרי עלי מנחה חצי עשרון ועשרון דכיון דאמר מנחה איחייב ליה בעשרון כי אמר חצי עשרון ולא כלום קאמר כי הדר אמר עשרון מייתי עשרון אחרינא

Rav Naḥman answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in the case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth and a tenth. Since he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah for it. When he said: Half a tenth, he is saying nothing, since a meal offering is not brought with that amount of flour. When he then said the word tenth, he therefore brings another tenth, totaling two tenths.

אי הכי רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבין אמאי אמר רבא ר’ שמעון בשיטת ר’ יוסי אמרה דאמר [אף] בגמר דבריו אדם מתפיס:

Rava asks: If so, then when the mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge, why is this his opinion? Once he said the term meal offering, the vow should be valid. Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the conclusion of a person’s statement is also accepted. Therefore, even when he said the term meal offering at the beginning of the vow, since at the end he also made declarations that do not apply to a voluntary meal offering, the vow does not take effect.

מתני׳ מתנדב אדם מנחה של ששים עשרון ומביא בכלי אחד (אם אמר הרי עלי ששים עשרון מביא בכלי אחד) אם אמר הרי עלי שישים ואחד מביא ששים בכלי אחד ואחד בכלי אחד שכן הציבור מביא ביום טוב הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת ששים ואחד

MISHNA: A person may pledge a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and bring all sixty tenths in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty tenths of an ephah, he brings it in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one tenths of an ephah, he brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel, as the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings as meal offerings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of an ephah of fine flour are brought.

דיו ליחיד שהוא פחות מן הציבור אחד

It is sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community. When the first day of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, thirteen bulls, two goats, and fourteen lambs are sacrificed as the additional offerings of Sukkot, two lambs are sacrificed as the daily offerings, and two lambs are sacrificed as the additional offering of Shabbat. Three tenths of an ephah are brought for each bull, two tenths for each goat, and a tenth for each lamb. Altogether, that is sixty-one tenths of an ephah.

אמר ר’ שמעון והלא אלו לפרים ואלו לכבשים ואינם נבללים זה עם זה אלא עד ששים יכולין ליבלל

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren’t these meal offerings for bulls and those for lambs, and they are not mixed with each other (see 89a)? Rather, the reason that one may not bring more than sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel is because up to sixty tenths of fine flour can be mixed with one log of oil.

אמרו לו ששים נבללין וששים ואחד אין נבללין אמר להם כל מדות חכמים כן בארבעים סאה הוא טובל ובארבעים סאה חסר קרטוב אינו יכול לטבול בהן:

The Rabbis said to him: Is it so that sixty tenths of flour can be mixed with a log of oil, but sixty-one tenths cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: All the measures of the Sages are so: For example, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.

גמ׳ שאיל שאילה למעלה מרבי יהודה בר אילעאי מנין לאומר הרי עלי ששים ואחד מביא ששים בכלי אחד ואחד בכלי אחד

GEMARA: The Sages asked a question above, i.e., in front of, Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: From where is it derived that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths, brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel?

פתח רבי יהודה בר אילעאי ראש המדברים בכל מקום ואמר שכן מצינו ציבור מביאין ביום טוב הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת ששים ואחד דיו ליחיד שיפחות מן הציבור אחד

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai, the first speaker on every occasion, began his speech and said: Since we find that the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of fine flour are brought, it is therefore sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community.

אמר לו ר’ שמעון והלא אלו פרים ואילים ואלו כבשים אלו בלילתן עבה ואלו בלילתן רכה אלו בלילתן שחרית ואלו בלילתן בין הערבים ואין נבללין מזה על זה

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Aren’t these meal offerings brought with bulls and those brought with lambs? Don’t these, the meal offerings brought with the bulls, have a thick mixture, as six log of oil are mixed with three tenths of an ephah of flour, and those, the meal offerings brought with the lambs, have a thin mixture, as three log of oil are mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour? Isn’t the mixture of these meal offerings, the daily offering and the additional offerings, performed in the morning, and the mixture of those meal offerings, brought with the afternoon daily offering, performed in the afternoon, and isn’t it the case that they are not mixed with one another? The communal offerings cannot serve as precedent because they never bring sixty-one tenths in one vessel.

אמרו לו אמור אתה אמר להם הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא ז, י) וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחרבה כבר אמרה תורה הבא מנחה שיכולה להיבלל

The Sages said to him: You should state a reason why a meal offering of more than sixty tenths of an ephah must be brought in more than one vessel. Rabbi Shimon said to them: It says in the Torah: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.

אמר לו בששים נבללין בששים ואחד אין נבללין אמר לו כל מדת חכמים כן הוא בארבעים סאה הוא טובל בארבעים סאה חסר קרטוב אינו יכול לטבול

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is it so that if the mixture consists of sixty tenths of flour, it can be mixed with a log of oil, and if it consists of sixty-one tenths, it cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: All the measures of the Sages are so: In a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.

כביצה מטמא טומאת אוכלין כביצה חסר שומשום אין מטמא טומאת אוכלין שלשה על שלשה מטמא מדרס שלשה על שלשה חסר נימא אחת אינו מטמא מדרס

Similarly, food in the volume of an egg-bulk transmits the ritual impurity of food, while food in the volume of an egg-bulk less a small amount equal to the volume of a sesame seed does not transmit impurity of food. Similarly, a garment that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading if a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] sits or lies on it, while if it is three by three handbreadths less one thread, a tiny measurement, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading.

וכי אין נבללין מאי הוי והא תנן אם לא בלל כשר אמר רבי זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו

The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil with the flour in a meal offering, if he did not mix them, it is still valid? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira says: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Although there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering.

אמר רבי ביבי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מעשה בפרדה אחת של בית רבי שמתה ושיערו חכמים את דמה ברביעית

The Gemara relates an incident involving halakhic measurements: Rabbi Beivai says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There was an incident involving a mule belonging to the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that died, and the Sages estimated the amount of its blood that emerged as a quarter-log, which is the minimum measurement for it to impart ritual impurity.

מתיב רבי יצחק בר ביסנא העיד רבי יהושע ורבי יהושע בן בתירא על דם נבילות שהוא טהור ואמר רבי יהושע בן בתירא מעשה והיו נוחרין ערודיאות לאריות באיסטריא של מלך והיו עולי רגלים שוקעין עד רכובותיהן בדם ולא אמרו להם דבר

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna raises an objection: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified that they had a tradition concerning the blood of unslaughtered animal carcasses that it is ritually pure. Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira said: An incident occurred where people were killing wild donkeys in order to feed the meat to the lions that were in the king’s stadium [be’istarya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeys’ blood, and the Sages did not say anything to them about them becoming impure. Apparently, the blood of an animal carcass does not transmit ritual impurity, even though the carcass itself does.

אישתיק אמר ליה ר’ זריקא מאי טעמא לא קא מהדר מר אמר ליה היכי אהדר ליה דאמר רבי חנין (דברים כח, סו) והיו חייך תלואים לך מנגד זה הלוקח תבואה משנה לשנה

Rabbi Beivai was silent and did not answer. Rabbi Zerika said to him: What is the reason that the Master does not respond to the question? Rabbi Beivai said to him: How can I respond to him? My circumstances can be described as Rabbi Ḥanin said in interpreting the verse: “And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your life” (Deuteronomy 28:66). “And your life shall hang in doubt before you”; this is referring to one who purchases grain from one year for the next, because he is not certain that he will find grain to eat in the next year.

ופחדת לילה ויומם זה הלוקח תבואה מערב שבת לערב שבת ואל תאמן בחייך זה הסומך על הפלטר

“And you shall fear night and day”; this is referring to one who purchases grain from one Shabbat eve to another because he does not have the resources to provide for himself further. “And you shall have no assurance of your life”; this is referring to one who relies on the baker [hapalter] to give him bread because he has no grain of his own.